Allowed

Shrawan Ram v. State and Anr.

Rajasthan HC10 Jan 2024CRLMP/249/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Division Bench quashed a criminal complaint initiated as a result of a Magistrate perceiving a need for inquiry after the first complaint against police officers was wrongly dismissed. The Court held that the victim should have challenged the dismissal under Section 482 Cr.P.C. rather than filing a second complaint for the same cause of action.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Complaint No.21/2017 dated 23.12.2017 and further proceedings initiated thereon are quashed and set aside.

Shrawan Ram Vs State and Anr. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:1681]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 433/2018

¶4

Vimla Devi Wife Of Shri Ramswaroop, By Caste Jat, At Present Sho, Police Station Rol, District Nagaur, Resident Of Hiradesar, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur.

¶5

Sugna Ram Son Of Shri Birma Ram, By Caste Jat, At Present Constable, Police Station Rol, District Nagaur, Resident Of Bhatnak, District Nagaur.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State Of Rajasthan 2. Sangeeta Widow Of Late Shri Ridhkaran Khati, Resident Of Fardod, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

Connected With

¶11

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 249/2018

¶12

Shrawan Ram Son Of Shri Sita Ram, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Fardod, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur.

¶13

----Petitioner

¶14

Versus

¶15

The State Of Rajasthan 2. Sangeeta Widow Of Late Shri Ridhkaran Khati, Resident Of Fardod, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur.

¶16

----Respondents

¶17

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Sachin Mathur
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	A.R. Choudhary, PP
	Mr.	Mukesh Mehriya

¶18

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶19

Order

¶20

10/01/2024

¶21

By way of filing the instant Misc. Petitions, challenge is made

¶22

to the order dated 23.12.2017 whereby the learned Judicial

[2024:RJ-JD:1681]

[CRLMP-433/2018]

(2 of 4)

Magistrate, Jayal has passed an order in Criminal Complaint No.21/2017 regarding initiation of the proceedings of complaint for the purpose of making necessary inquiry.

¶27

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondentcomplainant was allegedly subjected to rape and accordingly, an FIR No.81/2017 came to be lodged at Police Station Rol, District Nagaur for the offence under Sections 457 & 376 of the IPC. 3. The petitioners Vimla Devi, Sub-Inspector and Sugna Ram, Constable were investigating the matter viz., recording statement of the victim and collection of evidence etc. As a matter of fact, the victim was examined by a Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. where she resiled from her allegations and stated that no rape was committed upon her.

¶28

During the pendency of the aforementioned criminal case, the victim submitted a criminal complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Jayal against the petitioners police officer (In Misc. Petition No.433/2018) alleging that she was threatened by the Police Officer during investigation. After hearing her and on perusal of the averments made, the Judicial Magistrate dismissed the same on 27.11.2017 for want of prosecution sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. and for application of the Rajasthan State Amendment Ordinance, 2017 under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C.

¶29

Without challenging the dismissal of the previous complaint, the victim filed another complaint against the petitioners for the same cause of action with the prayer to send the same under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. for alleged offence under Sections 218, 201 & 352 of the IPC. The averments as mentioned in the

[2024:RJ-JD:1681]

[CRLMP-433/2018]

(3 of 4)

complaint were that the dismissal of complaint on 27.11.2017 was not in accordance with the law.

¶34

Upon receiving of the complaint, the learned Judicial Magistrate held that the earlier complaint was wrongly dismissed and, therefore, directed to commence inquiry regarding allegations made therein vide order dated 23.12.2017. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 23.12.2017 the petitioners preferred the instant Misc. Petitions before this Court. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material as available to this Court. It is not disputed that the averments, parties, cause of action, truth and substance of the previous complaints and the complaint in which the order under assail is passed are the same. 9. After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the material available on record, this Court is of the view that assuming for a moment that order dated 27.11.2017 regarding dismissal of complaint was not in consonance with law even then the only remedy available with the victim was to challenge the said order by way of filing a Criminal Revision or a Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. however, she cannot be permitted to submit a second complaint for the same offence with the prayer of lodgment of the FIR.

¶35

After taking a view in respect of dismissal of the complaint, the learned Magistrate was not supposed to take the second complaint by holding that her earlier view was not correct. It appears that instead of challenging the order dated 27.11.2017, regarding dismissal of the complaint, the victim submitted a second complaint before the same Court on the ground of

(4 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:1681]

[CRLMP-433/2018]

improper dismissal of the complaint. I am of the firm view that the course adopted by the victim was not proper. A second complaint for the same allegation cannot be entertained particularly when she has a right to challenge the order of dismissal of the complaint.

¶40

In this view of the matter, the instant Misc. Petitions succeed and the same are hereby allowed. The order dated 23.12.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jayal, District Nagaur in Criminal Complaint No.21/2017 whereby the further proceeding has been commenced upon the complaint are hereby quashed and set aside. The victim would be at liberty to take proper legal action as per the procedure established under the law.

¶41

Stay petitions also stand disposed of.

¶42

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶43

544-Mamta/-

Shrawan Ram v. State and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shrawan Ram v. State and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Poonam Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Bannaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Shaitan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Rahul Vs State of Rajasthan

Vimla Devi and Anr. Vs State and Anr.